Sections included in the FIR by police are: Sections 498-A, 509, 342, 504, 506, 427, 34 etc. of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

From Para 5 and 5.1,

At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any furthercontinuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society.

Learned advocate for the applicants states that matter is settled between the parties.

Despite it having POCSO applied, What does the below infer? It’s a screaming fake case, wherein the provisions of a penal act, were grossly and brazenly, misused by none other that the knife.

On scrutiny of the statement of witnesses like Sekhar Kar, Ramesh Saha and Shankar Roy recorded under Section 161 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, I do not find that the opposite party no.2 was subjected totorture by the present petitioners. However, on close scrutiny of all the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedureand on consideration of the allegation made in the written complaint treated as FIR, I do not find any specific role attributed to the present petitioners ininflicting mental torture or physically assault on the opposite party no.2. The allegation made against the present petitioners are vague and general in nature.

In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, thiscourt summarized some categories of cases where inherentpower can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:(i) where it manifestly appears that there is alegal bar against the institution or continuanceof the proceedings;(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face valueand accepted in their entirety do not constitutethe offence alleged;(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or theevidence adduced clearly

Reference made to Perjury

The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts come down heavilyupon such persons, the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined andfrustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of thecriminal court.

And law is explained in regards to IPC 415 and 420 Cheating case.

On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest thatin the definition there are two separate classes of acts whichthe person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making thepromise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep apromise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning.

And the forgery

The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under section 467 IPC:1. the document in question so forged;2. the accused who forged it.3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section.

when to issue non-bailable warrants for arresting an individual.

Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how andwhen warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come toour notice that in many cases that bailable and non-bailablewarrants are issued casually and mechanically. In the instantcase, the court without properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants.

And…

When non-bailable warrants should be issuedNon-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would beunlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:* it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or* the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or* it is considered that the person couldharm someone if not placed into custodyimmediately.

As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that asummon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should bepreferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable shouldnever be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely seriousconsequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance ofwarrants. The court must very carefully examine whether theCriminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court shoulddirect serving of the summons along with the copy of thecomplaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons,the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant.In the third instance, when the court is fullysatisfied that the accused is avoiding the court\022s proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailablewarrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount,therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.

The District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cancelled the bail earlier granted to the Accused, on the baseless and unproven allegations that “some unknown persons on their behalf started threatening the defacto complainant with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise in the case“.

Hon’ble AP High Court has rightly held that the above is not a ground that can be relied upon for Bail cancellation under CrPC 439, as the said allegations are at that point in time are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.

…and…

By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld.

Another case, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The hon’ble Supreme Court held that,

the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:“(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case.

This quash judgment from hon’ble high court of patna which held that there was no jurisdiction for Magistrate in Dharbhanga to prosecute the husband for 498A, whereas all the alleged offences occured in Hyderabad. Moreover there was a decree of divorce granted 2 years before instituting the 498A case!!